The Self in a Social World  Chapter 2

The Self in a Social World Chapter 2 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 206 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

The Self. Most researched topic in psychology today.Currently, the word self" appears in 194,590 peer reviewed journal articles, and 28,520 books summaries in PsycINFO. Over 20,000 summaries each for the terms self-esteem", and self-concept." . Elements of the Self". I. Self-Awar

Download Presentation

The Self in a Social World Chapter 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


1. The Self in a Social World Chapter 2

2. The Self Most researched topic in psychology today. Currently, the word “self” appears in 194,590 peer reviewed journal articles, and 28,520 books summaries in PsycINFO. Over 20,000 summaries each for the terms “self-esteem”, and “self-concept.”

3. Elements of the “Self” I. Self-Awareness II. Self-Concept III. Self-Esteem IV. Self-Regulation Self-Control Self-Presentation

4. Self-Awareness Private vs. Public Self Awareness Private self (emotions, motives, personal standards) Public Self (e.g., physical appearance, self-presentations, public standards)

5. Self-Awareness: Beaman et al. (1979) Halloween Study

6. Self-Awareness Personality Traits & Individual Differences: Private and Public Self-Consciousness (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) Private self-consciousness: Tendency to introspect about inner thoughts and feelings. Public self-consciousness: Tendency to focus on outer public image.

7. Self-Awareness: Private and Public Self-Consciousness

8. Self-Awareness: Public Self-Consciousness Effects

9. Self-Concept: Who Am I?

10. Self-Concept Development Development of the social self The social roles we play Social identity Social comparisons Other people’s judgments The Looking Glass Self Self and culture

11. Self-Concept: Responses to the “Who Am I?” Task Contents reflect a combination of 3 elements Physical Attributes, Social Roles, Psychological Traits “Salience Hierarchy” and social role importance Thoits (1992) found that a role’s impact on well-being depends on more factors than just its importance Physical symptoms were reduced with social roles that… “Voluntary to Exit” (e.g., friend, churchgoer, etc.) roles, or “Low Stress”- even if they were Difficult-to-Exit roles (e.g., daughter, spouse, etc.). Cultural Orientations Individualism vs. Collectivism (e.g., Trafimow, 1991)

12. Cultural Conceptions of the Self: Independent vs. Interdependent Self Views

13. Cultural Conceptions of the Self

14. The Social Self: Self & Culture (Kim & Markus, 1999)

15. The Social Self: Self & Culture (Kim & Markus, 1999)

16. The Social Self: A Motivated Self-Concept

17. Self-Concept: Self-Knowledge Self-knowledge Explaining our behavior Emotional Arousal Effects (e.g., Dutton & Aron, 1974; Nisbett & Schacter, 1966) Predicting our behavior MacDonald & Ross (1997)- Longevity of Romantic Relationships Predicting our feelings Affective Forecasting (difficulties assessing intensity and duration of emotions) Impact Bias The wisdom and delusions of self-analysis (Wilson, 1985) The mental processes that control social behavior are distinct from those that explain social behavior Dual Attitude System- Explicit vs. Implicit Attitudes

18. Explaining Our Behavior Schachter & Singer’s Theory of Emotion (1962)- Emotions result from physiological arousal that is then cognitively labeled. When experiencing ambiguous states of arousal, cues in the environment can determine the particular label for an emotion. Missatributions of Arousal Effects Occur when people mislabel an ambiguous arousal state as being caused by an environmental cue that is present but was not the actual cause of the arousal state.

19. Explaining Our Behavior: Misattribution of Arousal Effects Dutton & Aron (1974)- Attractive female confederate “experimenter” approached males in either an anxiety creating high shaky (anxiety producing) suspension bridge, or a stable bridge (non-anxiety producing)

20. SELF-ESTEEM

21. The Sociometer Theory View: A Need for Self-Esteem Leary & Baumeister (2000) People are inherently social animals. Need for self-esteem is driven by primitive need to connect with others and gain their approval. Feelings of self-esteem serve the function of signaling if we are being accepted or rejected by others.

22. Influences of Gender, and Race/Ethnicity on Self-Esteem Like individuals, social and cultural groups differ in their self-esteem. Gender differences Among adolescents and young adults, males outscore females slightly (if at all) on various measures of general/global self-esteem. Such difference tend to be very small, particularly among older adults. Ethnic Differences Research tends to find differences based on ethnicity

23. Self-Esteem and Ethnic Differences

24. Conceptualizing Self-Esteem Dynamics Self-Esteem Level (Trait/Global Self-Esteem) General/Typical feelings of self-worth or liking Average Tone of self-feeling across specific domains “High” or “Low” Does High Self-Esteem = Healthy Self-Esteem?

25. A Closer Look At SE Level Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: (10-Items) Negatively skewed: Average SE score is ~ 40 with a range of possible scores from 10-50. High SE ~ 40-50 = Extremely favorable SE. Low SE ~ 30-39 = “Neutral” or moderately favorable feelings of self-worth. However, a closer examination of what self-esteem level is conceptually and specific characteristics of measures of SE level may be warranted. You’ll notice that the Rosenberg scale is negatively skewed, meaning that most individuals score higher than the midpoint. That is most, individuals indicate that their feelings of self-worth are not ambivalent or neutral, but actually fairly positive. In fact, what researchers’ typically identify as low self-esteem are scores that hover around and slightly above the midpoint of the scale. Thus, when we say that someone has low self-esteem (at least in the case of most college samples) a more appropriate characterization might be to say that such individuals have moderately positive self-feelings or ambivalent feelings towards themselves.However, a closer examination of what self-esteem level is conceptually and specific characteristics of measures of SE level may be warranted. You’ll notice that the Rosenberg scale is negatively skewed, meaning that most individuals score higher than the midpoint. That is most, individuals indicate that their feelings of self-worth are not ambivalent or neutral, but actually fairly positive. In fact, what researchers’ typically identify as low self-esteem are scores that hover around and slightly above the midpoint of the scale. Thus, when we say that someone has low self-esteem (at least in the case of most college samples) a more appropriate characterization might be to say that such individuals have moderately positive self-feelings or ambivalent feelings towards themselves.

26. Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-esteem Scale Assesses people’s general or typical feelings of self worth, liking, acceptance and competence: “how you generally or typically feel about yourself” People are often grouped as being High or Low in Self-Esteem Is the most widely used measure of self-esteem. Developed by Morris Rosenberg, a Developmental Psychologist who was interested in adolescents self-esteem. Nonetheless his scale has provided an economical measure that has been particularly fruitful in many ways and helped to pave the way for much of the self-esteem movement starting in the mid 1960’s. Is the most widely used measure of self-esteem. Developed by Morris Rosenberg, a Developmental Psychologist who was interested in adolescents self-esteem. Nonetheless his scale has provided an economical measure that has been particularly fruitful in many ways and helped to pave the way for much of the self-esteem movement starting in the mid 1960’s.

27. Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale: Sample Items “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others” “I take a positive attitude toward myself” “I wish that I could have more respect for myself” (reverse scored) Respondents on the measure are asked to rate the extent that they agree and disagree with 10 statements asking about who they are in general. Respondents on the measure are asked to rate the extent that they agree and disagree with 10 statements asking about who they are in general.

28. Research Findings on SE Level High SE = and Low SE = Benefits Associated with High SE Level Life Satisfaction, Happiness Self-Confidence More persistance in the face of failure Perceive Favorable Attributes (Intelligence, Physical Attractiveness, and Social Skills)

29. How High Can High SE Take You?

30. Is There A “Darkside to High SE?”

31. Contrasting Research Findings on SE Level Does High SE = ??? Suboptimal Functioning Linked with High SE Level Narcissism Self-Serving Bias (Success = Me, Failure = Situation) Objective measures (e.g., IQ) DO NOT tend to correlate with reported SE level Aggression, Hostility

32. Resolving the Contrasting Views of Self-Esteem Level Healthy SE ? High SE Level SE is multifaceted, thus additional SE components (beyond its level) must be considered. One perspective emphasizes distinguishing SE among fragile or secure forms (e.g., Kernis & Goldman, 1999, 2003). Traditional measures of SE Level do not adequately distinguish among fragile or secure types of SE. A richer understanding of SE dynamics requires examining how one’s SE level is paired with fragile or secure components of SE.

33. Additional SE Components Stability of Self-Esteem The magnitude of fluctuations or changes in feelings of self-worth in response to particular events, situations, or contexts. Self-Esteem Contingency The extent that feelings of self-worth depend on what one achieves, accomplishes, or what outcomes one experiences. Self-Esteem Congruence The extent that people’s conscious (explicit) and non-conscious (implicit) feelings of self-worth are relatively similar or dissimilar to one another.

34. Contingent Self-Worth: A Closer Look Refers to the degree that self-worth is based on matching standards or expectations regarding social approval, appearance, performance, or other criteria (Kernis, 2003; Deci & Ryan, 1995; Crocker & Wolf, 2001). Contingent approval promotes greater sensitivity to and awareness of pressures to perform (Neighbors, Larimer, Geisner, & Knee, 2004). Develops in response to chronic exposure to conditional evaluative feedback from controlling figures, expressed as “if…then…contingencies” (Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996). Conditional regard thus results in people regulating their actions based on introjected motivations (Assor, Roth, & Deci, 2004).

35. “If I have hair then I am worthy” or “If I have a hot wife then I must be good”

36. Additional SE Components: Fragile SE vs. Secure SE Unstable SE: substantial short-term fluctuations Highly Contingent SE: dependent upon achieving specific outcomes, matching standards Incongruent SE: Discrepancies between implicit and explicit SE Stable SE: minimal short-term fluctuations Low Contingent “True” SE: arises naturally from having satisfied basic psychological needs, rather than from matching standards Congruent SE: consistency between implicit and explicit SE

37. Resolving Conflicting High SE Findings: Different Forms of High SE Exist!!! (Reviewed in Kernis & Goldman, 2002; Kernis, 2003) Secure High SE Report liking and being satisfied with oneself Are accepting of one’s weaknesses Have a strong or solid foundation of self Low Ego-Involvement Do NOT require continual validation or promotion Do Not rely on SE maintenance strategies to attain positive SE Fragile High SE Report liking and being satisfied with oneself Resist acknowledging one’s weaknesses Have a weak sense of self; lack of self-concept clarity High Ego-Involvement Prime objective is continual SE validation or promotion Rely on SE maintenance and SE promotion strategies in order to attain positive SE To summarize, the findings for self-esteem level and healthy psychological functioning appear to offer a mixed story. On one hand, individuals with high self-esteem like themselves, feel confident, experience positive emotions, and are satisfied in their lives. On the other hand, individuals with high self-esteem may have overly inflated self-views that reflect a motivation toward maintaining a positive view of self, even if it involves distorting the reasons for their successes and failures. The latter perspective seems to suggest that although some individuals may have positive feelings toward themselves that are also particularly fragile. Given the different perspectives on the nature of high self-esteem a distinction has been made between fragile and secure forms of high self-esteem. Secure High Self-Esteem individuals are characterized by having feelings of self-worth that reflect that they like, value, and accept themselves, and are capable of acknowledging their weaknesses- warts and all. In contrast, Fragile High Self-Esteem individuals also like themselves and they feel very proud and confident. However, they do not like to see weaknesses in themselves and are especially prone to experiencing threats to their self-worth. In having a heightened focus on possible threats to their self-worth, fragile self-esteem individuals are quick to defend against such threats and engage in excessive self-enhancing or self-promoting to counter threatening self-relevant information. To summarize, the findings for self-esteem level and healthy psychological functioning appear to offer a mixed story. On one hand, individuals with high self-esteem like themselves, feel confident, experience positive emotions, and are satisfied in their lives. On the other hand, individuals with high self-esteem may have overly inflated self-views that reflect a motivation toward maintaining a positive view of self, even if it involves distorting the reasons for their successes and failures. The latter perspective seems to suggest that although some individuals may have positive feelings toward themselves that are also particularly fragile. Given the different perspectives on the nature of high self-esteem a distinction has been made between fragile and secure forms of high self-esteem. Secure High Self-Esteem individuals are characterized by having feelings of self-worth that reflect that they like, value, and accept themselves, and are capable of acknowledging their weaknesses- warts and all. In contrast, Fragile High Self-Esteem individuals also like themselves and they feel very proud and confident. However, they do not like to see weaknesses in themselves and are especially prone to experiencing threats to their self-worth. In having a heightened focus on possible threats to their self-worth, fragile self-esteem individuals are quick to defend against such threats and engage in excessive self-enhancing or self-promoting to counter threatening self-relevant information.

38. Studies Examining the Interaction Between SE Level & Components of Fragile/Secure SE Romantic Relationships (Kernis, Goldman, & Paradise, 2000) SE Level X SE Stability Verbal Defensiveness (Kernis, Lakey,& Heppner 2008) SE Level X SE Stability SE Level X Contingent SE SE Level X Congruent SE

39. ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS STUDY

40. Relationship Study Measures & Overview SE Variables- SE Level: Rosenberg SE Measure (RSE; 1965), “General SE” SE Stability: Multiple Assessments of modified RSE, “Current SE” Relationship Variables- Reactions to potentially negative hypothetical relationship events (RRI) General Relationship Quality (Dyadic Adjustment Scale; Spanier,1976)

41. Relationship Reaction Inventory (RRI; Kernis, Goldman, & Paradise) Participants read a series of potentially negative relationship events, and for each event, rated their anticipated reactions in terms of 4 different reaction styles. “How likely is it that you would respond by…” Constructive Reactions Minimize: taking the event at face value, minimizing the potentially negative implications of the event’s relevance Benign Explanation: providing a positive external rationale for the event Destructive Reactions Personalizing: Exaggerating or magnifying the self-implications of the event’s relevance Reciprocating: To “get even”

42. SAMPLE EVENT #1: “Your Partner Leaves a Note Around From a Person Named Pat and You Don’t Know Anyone Named Pat…” Personalize Reaction: “Think that your partner is untrustworthy and might be betraying you”

43. SAMPLE EVENT #2: Your Partner Does Not Look Up From What He or She is Doing When You First Enter the Room and Begin Talking. You Ask Several Questions and Still Your Partner Answers Without Looking Up… Minimize Reaction: “Not think very much about it”

44. “Minimize” Reaction

45. “Benign Explanation” Reaction

46. “Personalize” Reaction

47. “Get Even” Reaction

48. Perceptions of General Relationship Quality Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) Affection (e.g., agreement on displays of love and affection) Cohesiveness (e.g., experience laughter, discussions together) Satisfaction (e.g., happy with relationship and minimal conflict)

49. “Relationship Quality” Total Score

50. Relationship Study Conclusions In contrast to Stable High SE, Unstable High SE was associated with… Greater endorsement of destructive reactions Less endorsement of constructive reactions Less overall relationship quality Unstable High SE individuals always scored at one extreme, and Stable High SE individuals scored at the other extreme Of all the SE types, diminished psychological functioning was reflected in those with Unstable High SE Relationship functioning was best understood when considering the joint effects of peoples’ SE Level AND the relative fragility (instability) or security (stability) of their SE.

51. The Story of “Ripple” Ripple is bright and gifted in many ways. She’s self-confident, has high hopes for herself and was even voted “Most likely to succeed” in her High School yearbook. She’s also very adventurous and likes having new experiences where she can further demonstrate her many talents. Fortunately, a new interdisciplinary course was being offered between the Art and Philosophy programs at her school. Having a knack for the pencil and brush and an expectation for academic success in all programs, Ripple decided to enroll in the course. At the beginning of the semester, Ripple was very pleased with the course and was able to maintain her prior level of academic success on all her assignments. Here’s an example of her early work to a homework assignment. Specifically, the assignment asked her to “Draw a picture of herself that incorporates her philosophy on life” Here’s what she turned in… Ripple is bright and gifted in many ways. She’s self-confident, has high hopes for herself and was even voted “Most likely to succeed” in her High School yearbook. She’s also very adventurous and likes having new experiences where she can further demonstrate her many talents. Fortunately, a new interdisciplinary course was being offered between the Art and Philosophy programs at her school. Having a knack for the pencil and brush and an expectation for academic success in all programs, Ripple decided to enroll in the course. At the beginning of the semester, Ripple was very pleased with the course and was able to maintain her prior level of academic success on all her assignments. Here’s an example of her early work to a homework assignment. Specifically, the assignment asked her to “Draw a picture of herself that incorporates her philosophy on life” Here’s what she turned in…

52. HW #1: “Draw a Self-Portrait that includes your Philosophy on Life” For anybody who cannot see the images or writing, let me describe for you what is depicted. There is a picture of cat, presumably Ripple peering into a mirror. The reflected image in the mirror however is no ordinary cat, but rather a royal cat- a lion to be precise, revered for its dominion over the other creatures in the jungle. Scrolled above the images are the words “What matter most is how you see yourself.” What I think is important to note about the story of Ripple so far, is that despite her obvious talents and ability to always land on her feet, Ripple does not see herself as an ordinary cat, but rather has somewhat of a distorted idealized view of herself. Whether or not this self-view is healthy for Ripple is yet to be determined, but let me tell you some more about Ripple. As the course progressed Ripple felt the material was increasingly “stupid and irrelevant” even when her grades did not suffer. Things finally reached a breaking point for Ripple when for her midterm she was asked to write an essay identifying her worst weaknesses and then draw a picture that reflects how you felt while writing the essay. After angrily tearing up her essay… Here is what she drewFor anybody who cannot see the images or writing, let me describe for you what is depicted. There is a picture of cat, presumably Ripple peering into a mirror. The reflected image in the mirror however is no ordinary cat, but rather a royal cat- a lion to be precise, revered for its dominion over the other creatures in the jungle. Scrolled above the images are the words “What matter most is how you see yourself.” What I think is important to note about the story of Ripple so far, is that despite her obvious talents and ability to always land on her feet, Ripple does not see herself as an ordinary cat, but rather has somewhat of a distorted idealized view of herself. Whether or not this self-view is healthy for Ripple is yet to be determined, but let me tell you some more about Ripple. As the course progressed Ripple felt the material was increasingly “stupid and irrelevant” even when her grades did not suffer. Things finally reached a breaking point for Ripple when for her midterm she was asked to write an essay identifying her worst weaknesses and then draw a picture that reflects how you felt while writing the essay. After angrily tearing up her essay… Here is what she drew

53. HW #2: “Identify your worst weaknesses and draw how you felt while writing the essay” I realize that images are symbols and symbols may be conceptualized through many different interpretations. With that being acknowledged let me suggest that the image depicted before you is not the face of an enthusiastic Beatles fan singing along to the chorus of “Hey Jude”. Rather, this is a face of anger, a face that communicates a fierce yet defensive posture. Her eyes are closed as she roars to all to acknowledge her presence. This is the face of royalty demanding a throne. This is the face of one who does not want to stare back at a mirror and see an ordinary, or even less than ordinary cat. I realize that images are symbols and symbols may be conceptualized through many different interpretations. With that being acknowledged let me suggest that the image depicted before you is not the face of an enthusiastic Beatles fan singing along to the chorus of “Hey Jude”. Rather, this is a face of anger, a face that communicates a fierce yet defensive posture. Her eyes are closed as she roars to all to acknowledge her presence. This is the face of royalty demanding a throne. This is the face of one who does not want to stare back at a mirror and see an ordinary, or even less than ordinary cat.

54. Verbal Defensiveness Study

55. SE Variables & Measures SE Level: Rosenberg SE Scale(RSE); Measures feelings about one’s self-worth in general SE Stability: Multiple assessments of a modified RSE version; Measures current feelings of self-worth (how one feels about oneself “right now”) Implicit SE: Name letter effect; degree of liking for 1st letter of first and last name relative to all other letters Contingent SE: 15-item scale (CSES; Kernis & Paradise, 2005) tapping overall degree of SE contingency “An important measure of my worth is how competently I perform”

56. Defense Mechanisms Defense Mechanisms reflect “…motivated cognitive-behavioral strategies that protect the self from perceived threats” by maintaining or augmenting SE, or reducing negative affect (Feldman Barrett et al., 1996) People attempt to reduce perceived threats by dealing with them in 2 ways: By controlling whether the threat enters consciousness (Awareness) By controlling the specific content of the thoughts and feelings that enter consciousness (Distortion) When people perceive a self-esteem threat, for example, they may attempt to deal with surfacing unpleasant affect by controlling whether the threat enters consciousness (awareness) or by controlling the specific content of the thoughts or feelings that enter consciousness (distortion) When people perceive a self-esteem threat, for example, they may attempt to deal with surfacing unpleasant affect by controlling whether the threat enters consciousness (awareness) or by controlling the specific content of the thoughts or feelings that enter consciousness (distortion)

57. Defensive Verbal Behavior Assessment (Feldman Barrett et al., 2002) The DVBA was created to assess individual differences in self-protective defensiveness Defensiveness is gauged via a Standardized (40-60 minute) Structured Interview, that involves discussing one’s previously encountered stressful experiences. 5 Non-stressful (Filler) Items & 15 Mildly to Moderately Stressful Items (e.g., “Tell me about a time when… “You felt that your parents were really disappointed in you.” “You’ve broken the rules.” “You’ve had hateful feelings toward a loved one” “You fantasized about being with someone other than your partner at the time you were dating them.”

58. DVBA Scoring Coders independently rated participants interview responses by incorporating two aspects of defensiveness: Awareness and Distortion Awareness: conscious understanding and acceptance of one’s cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in the face of a threat Distortion: reinterpretation of events through rationalization or justification

59. DVBA Scoring (cont.) Non-Defensive Response (score = 0): High Awareness and Low Distortion Mildly Defensive Response (score = 1): Moderate Awareness and Mild Distortion Moderately Defensive Response (score = 2): Limited Awareness and Moderate Distortion Highly Defensive Response (score = 3): High Unawareness and High Distortion

60. Non-Defensive Coded Response DVBA Score = 0 I: “Tell me about a time when you’ve broken the rules.” P: In third grade, my teacher told us that we had to be nice to this guy. He wasn’t an exchange student, but he came from a place where the people don’t speak English very well. So she told us we were all supposed to be nice to him, and I tried to, but he started to get on my nerves very bad. So I shoved him, and got into trouble. She called me out in front of the whole class. I: And how did you feel about doing that and breaking her rule. P: I felt horrible, both because I hurt this guy’s feelings and I got called out. I was mean, and I didn’t like that.

61. Highly-Defensive Coded Response DVBA Score = 3 I: “Tell me about a time when you’ve broken the rules.” P: The rules (laughs)! What do you mean “the rules”? I: “Whatever you feel applied to you as the rules.” P: I guess in high school, I cheated on a couple of tests. I guess that’s breaking the rules. I: “And how did you feel about cheating on a test and breaking the rules?” P: (Laugh) I felt good because I got a higher grade (laugh). I didn’t feel bad.

62. Non-Defensive Coded Response DVBA Score = 0 I: Tell me about a time when you’ve fantasized about being with someone other than your partner at the time when you were dating your partner. P: Um,…I’m thinking that it’d have to be with this guy that, um, I had dated, um the summer before last, and he had been back up to school, um, I met this other guy that…who I really, really liked and, uh, we hadn’t seen each other for a while so this new guy that I liked with me…with each other, so when I was with my old, um, with my boyfriend like I thought about this other guy a lot more than I thought about him. I: And how did you feel about that? P: Um, I mean I did feel guilty about it, but at the same time it made me realize that I didn’t have feelings for my boyfriend anymore, so I did need to break up with him.

63. Highly-Defensive Coded Response DVBA Score = 3 I: Tell me about a time when you fantasized about being with someone other than your partner at the time you were dating them. P: Um, (long pause)…I can’t think of a time. Nope…(long pause) I don’t know. I can’t think of a time when I fantasized about somebody else because I’m with somebody because I want to be with them, like they wouldn’t want to be with anybody else, so I don’t really fantasize about other people.

64. Correlation Results

65. SE Level X SE Stability Interaction

66. SE Level X Contingent SE Interaction

67. SE Level X Implicit SE Interaction

68. Verbal Defensiveness Study Conclusions The findings support the contention that how people attend to and process threatening information involving themselves is best understood when both people’s SE Level AND the relative fragility or security of their SE is jointly considered. In contrast to High SE that was secure in nature (stable, true/non-contingent, or congruent), individuals with High SE that was fragile (unstable, contingent, or incongruent), were significantly more defensive when discussing their prior stressful/threatening experiences. Secure High SE persons were most prone, whereas Fragile High SE persons were typically least prone to (a) openly acknowledge and be aware of SE threatening information involving oneself (b) accept such information in a non-distorting manner.

69. SELF-REGULATION

70. Self-Regulation Typically, refers to the directing and controlling of one’s behaviors. Perspectives on Self-Regulation Ego-Depletion Model Self-Determination Theory Perceptions of Self-Control

71. Ego-Depletion Model (e.g., Baumeister, 1998) Proposes that people have a limited amount of self-control or willpower. The use of willpower for one task depletes or reduces its availability for later tasks.

72. Self-Determined Regulation Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) Understanding human motivation requires a consideration of people’s fundamental/basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. People differ in the extent to which they regulate their behavior based on choice (i.e., autonomy/growth motivations) or based on (either real or imagined) pressures to perform (i.e., controlled/defensive motivations). Such differences have important implications for psychological health. According to SDT, healthy psychological outcomes only emerge when one’s fundamental psychological needs are being satisfied.

73. Growth vs. Defense Motives Autonomous behaviors tend to reflect growth motivation Actions arise from causes that are internal to a person openness to feedback desire for self-improvement, challenge, and mastery “approach orientations” (e.g., “Learn more about myself”) Controlled behaviors tend to reflect ego motivation Actions are caused by external reasons or personally imposed (i.e., intrapsychic) pressures view feedback as threatening and tied to their self-worth defending one’s ego: desire for maintaining positive self-regard “avoidance orientations” (e.g., “Avoid bad grades”)

74. Self-Regulatory Styles The reasons for people’s goal pursuits (i.e., “why they do what they do”) reflect differences in their degree of self-determination (SD). Self-Regulatory Reasons Categories: External (e.g., to avoid punishment or gain rewards) Introjected (e.g., to avoid feeling guilty or anxious) Identified (e.g., value congruence or contributions toward growth and development) Intrinsic (e.g., fun and enjoyment) external-----------------------------------------intrinsic (Low SD) (High SD)

75. Self-Determined Self-Regulation and Religion Ryan, Rigby and King (1993) examined how regulating one’s religious actions based on identified or introjected forms of self-regulation would account for people’s psychological health. The findings support the conclusion that it’s not just what people do, it’s why they do what they do that determines if their actions confer benefits to their psychological health.

76. Self-Determined Regulation & Religion

77. Self-Determined Regulation & Religion

78. Self-Determined Regulation & Religion

79. Perceived Self-Control Self-efficacy Locus of control Learned helplessness versus self-determination

80. Learned Helplessness

81. Self-Serving Bias Explanations for positive and negative events Downward Social Comparisons- Can we all be better than average? Unrealistic optimism

82. Self-Serving Bias Reflections on self-efficacy and self-serving bias The self-serving bias as adaptive The self-serving bias as maladaptive

83. Self-Presentation False modesty Self-handicapping Impression management Self-Monitoring

84. More on Self-Presentation

  • Login